Im in a Pickle

[cupic]

Its decision time Folks

I have read and read and You Tube but based on previous experience I still cant make a informal decision,So Im
asking my fellow Nikonites for advice

My problem is to choose between

Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 mega expense but top notch gear (I am a hobbyist)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (show some love) Its slow focus but tack sharp,better than some Sigma's perhaps
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM and the Non OS mixed thoughts on this one

I am armed with a D300

I gather all the good points and bad points its just that the hit and miss ratio with the Sigma is a worry to me as my last copy in Pentax Mount left me wondering
as why spent the dollars and not getting tack sharp wide open @ 200mm

Thanks in advance

cheers

[Wayne]

Simple,

Get the Nikkor, it will last a lifetime, is built like a tank, weather and dust sealed, it is faster focusing than the others mentioned, it is a known and renowned sharp performer at all focal lengths and apertures, is a great piece of glass on both DX and FX. It can also be used with teleconverters to extend your reach without too much of a performance hit so is also versatile.

The Nikkor can also be had in 2 flavours, either the version 1 with VR, and version II with VR2. Never discount getting a mint used example of either series, they are both stellar, and you can save quite alot over the new price, particularly on the original VR version. Always plenty of these on the market in the USA, prices for mint samples hover around US$1400-1500 and shipping is about $60-70.
Purchase once, purchase right :th3:

[kiwi]

get a second hand 70-200 VRI

or a sigma 70-200 HSM, I think the new ones are pretty good value really

[junqbox]

nikon (even SH)

[Lance B]

Agree with Wayne. If you can, then just fork out the extra dough and be done with it because, as good as they are, you may get the Tammy or Siggy and always have that nagging feeling in the back of your head, "should I have got the Nikon?". Also, it works brilliantly with the Nikon TC's. The other thing you may have overlooked is that even though it may cost more, you will recoup that when you resell as it's resale value will always command top $. If you want to see some sample shots of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII + TC's, I can post those so you can see how good it is. :)

[andylo]

cupic - are you the kind of person who will blame the equipment, along with the thought like the following: "only if I have such such lens, or such such filters) etc? Don't have to tell us, just be honest to yourself.

Me - I am that kind of person!

My story: Bought some 3rd party or non-Pro lenses - somehow pictures turn out not as good as I like, thinking: "Only if I have the same focal length lens, but in the Ls!"

So for my peace of mind - I am using only Pro lenses now.

If you are my kind of person, go for the Nikkor.

p.s. Does my pics turns better with pro lenses? Yes, it is - but not 2, 4 or 10 times better (re price vs improvement ratio). They are just slightly better. Most importantly is the person behind the viewfinder that's matter.

[cupic]

Wish that Nikon could bring out some more option eg;70-200 f/4,70-200 f/2.8 non VR or 70-200 f/4 VR same a s a Canon range.

I feel that I can relate to you Andy,but the only reason I feel that I might need VR for greater control on lower Shutter speed

but then that's what the tripod for and if need for speed raise up the shutter priority and the shakes are nearly eliminated

cheers

[arthurking83]

Noting that I have the Tamron lens of the lenses mentioned, I'd say go for the Nikon too.

The only feature I miss having is the VR on the rare occasions that it's needed.

For most uses, I don't really need it(VR!), as I'm either on a tripod, or shooting at fast shutter speeds.

I've shot using the Tamron for a few various sports situations(Aussie rules) go karting, kids darting about a field and I've never felt that the focus is 'slow' to the point where I miss any important shots. Shots I've missed have been due to user/camera errors in focusing on the wrong point.

But when you need it and don't have it, VR is a feature that you miss the most.

The problem with relying on a tripod as a substitute for VR is that when the tripod is a liability, you don't have either option at all, and sometimes just raising ISO or shutter is also not an option too.

VR is great in that it will help when you're stuck when a tripod is not an option.
(mind you this is from a dedicated tripod using freak too!)

VR is also great in that it's less cumbersome than a tripod(and thus it's one of those aspects of photography that is never bound by rules and regulations!!) and if you don't want it, you simply turn it off... easy!

So for the longest of long term propositions, the Nikon VR wins the competition.

I've had my T 70-200 now from about Jan '09, and I've used it fairly regularly when the situation calls for it.
I've never really found that it's ever been a liability other than the lack of stabilisation.

It does have a peculiar issue with focusing, and that is that AF doesn't work properly using liveview(and confirmed by at least one other person).
It focuses in and out, but never locks on. manual focus in Lv mode is a definite requirement.
Having said that tho, the only reason I found this issue is that I was testing the lens for focus accuracy, as I very rarely use AF in Lv mode anyhow.
But when trying to do focus accuracy tests, I first tried to AF using Lv to get a reference point and noticed that it never locked on.

Unfortunately, I don't have any TC's to mate to this (or most other) lenses so I cant' show you any shots like that, but I have thousands of normal images using the bare lens.

If you are desperate, the Tammy is actually the best value for money lens of this type, and by a large margin.
As an interim stop gap, you could get it, get to use it for an indefinite period if you are at a point where such a lens type isn't in your lineup and at least get some images of the type it allows you to capture.
If at some point you end up also that you also need to have VR as well, you would then sell the Tammy to fund the purchase of the Nikon lens.

Sitting at home waiting for $2k to drop on your lap whilst photo opportunities pass you by doesn't get you images!

.. bird in the hand scenario.

My way of thinking is, that if I lose a couple of hundred dollars on the Tammy over a 3 year period, it's still money well spent as I got the images I wanted too.
If you're not in a rush, wait to get the Nikon version!

Between the Tammy and the Nikon 80-200/2.8 D .. the Tammy wins tho.

[cupic]

Thanks for the write up Arthur just what the doctor ordered .I feel the Nikkor is my solution only to find
the deal to make my accountant happy :)

cheers

[swifty]

If you're likely always gonna stick to DX, get a Nikon VRI version.
If you're likely to go FX but will use it mainly for portraits and isolating other subjects at 2.8, the VR I will do just fine. If you want to use it for landscapes at f8 and want edge to edge sharpness, get the VR II.
I have no experience with the Tamron or Sigma's but I'm sure they are just as nice.

[wolffman]

Nikkor

[Salisbury]

Hi Cupic, I am going through this same problem myself at the moment.... I have the D700 and bought the 24-70 which I love, but can't get close enough.... New lens coming up. Bank balance still reeling from the 24-70... However, I have a friend who is a pro. and he uses the 80-200 and loves it. Wouldn't use anything else. He says it is a very under rated lens. It is half the price of the 70-200. Check it out. It is what I am going to go with (at this point in time!!!!) Regards, :)

[dunnart]

Agree with Wayne. If you can, then just fork out the extra dough and be done with it because, as good as they are, you may get the Tammy or Siggy and always have that nagging feeling in the back of your head, "should I have got the Nikon?". Also, it works brilliantly with the Nikon TC's. The other thing you may have overlooked is that even though it may cost more, you will recoup that when you resell as it's resale value will always command top $. If you want to see some sample shots of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII + TC's, I can post those so you can see how good it is. :)

+1 - once you've bought your first $2,000+ lens, the rest get easier:D

[cupic]

I have bitten the bullet and have a Version 1 on the way.Has anyone experience the lenses foot loose and if so has anyone after tighten it feel that a replacement needed.
I am curious as the seller mention a RRS system a a replacement.Not sure thats why Im asking

cheers

[arthurking83]

I have bitten the bullet and have a Version 1 on the way.Has anyone experience the lenses foot loose and if so has anyone after tighten it feel that a replacement needed.
I am curious as the seller mention a RRS system a a replacement.Not sure thats why Im asking

cheers


I haven't, but Bjorn says it's not their best effort(although also not their worst either!).

Apparently it's an issue if you shoot on tripod at 1sec-about 1/10 or 1/15s speeds, where it can cause the hippy hippy shakes.

Are there other issues with the tripod collar/foot? have there been any failures of any kind?

I nearly hit the button on one today myself, but refrained.(I remembered that I desperately need better upper tripod support first).

[Wayne]

I have the V1 and the foot is rock solid, just tighten up the knob. I have attached an Arca plate to mine so I can use it in an Arca clamp, and I do sometimes remove the foot from the lens (2 sec to do) when shooting it handheld for longer periods. The foot on the 400/2.8VR, now that is one that needs replacing (I have a Wimberley replacement) with a Wimberley, RRS, Kirk etc foot.

You will not be sorry you have spent a few extra $$ for a first class proven performer.

[cupic]

Oh I not sorry for the extra coin ,I am concentrating of selling images :)

cheers

[mongo]

Mongo agrees with KIWI in both respects.

a mint condition second hand nikkor 70-200 f2.8VR will cost about the same as the others new give or take a fraction.

Mongo has tried the Sigma version of this and it is no slouch in performance if you have to buy a new one. But hey, if you want to save some real extra dollars, you could even think of buying buy this second hand

[cupic]

I did have a sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macro II version on my Pentax mount.It was a stellar performer up to 175mm.But soft @ 200mm

cheers

[cupic]

just a side note with serial number stamped on nikkor lenses and the start of production is one related to the other
eg production of lens Jan06-Jan09 and the serial numbers 200001-201009 would this in fact mean the the lower number be related to the start of production

cheers

[Wayne]

See here;

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

[cupic]

Yes i have that site,that's the original for the question the 70-200 f/2.8 has a serial number of 234XXX and I thought being that low it would perhaps be a 04-05 model or there about


Anyone can share on this thought

cheers

[davidbro]

Nikkor is good!

[cupic]

And once I get my hands on it(The snail mail is slow so I will have to wait til after Xmas :christmasparty: ) I will be
caning it :th3:

cheers

[Wayne]

In short, yes lower serial is probably earlier production, but there seems to be some contention among people as to whether that is concrete or otherwise. It is irrelevant in any event if the lens is in excellent condition.

[cupic]

I have my Nikkor in my hot hands and after a few test shots ,All is good,with the collar removed even more manageable and weight isn't too great even
with collar on very balanced on the D300,now to scout out some location and to upload

cheers